Organized crime and international betting networks, along with the rise of innovative products like prediction markets, are complicating efforts to combat match-fixing.
Officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) recently informed the House of Lords that the issue of match-fixing is becoming increasingly intricate. They emphasized that the upcoming international treaty, which the U.K. is set to ratify, aims to stay relevant as betting products evolve, including the emergence of prediction markets. However, they acknowledged that one of the most significant hurdles in addressing match-fixing is enforcing laws against the criminals behind these operations.
Emma Floyd, the DCMS Director of Sports and Gambling, along with Deputy Director Simon Mason, provided testimony to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee on July 21. This session was part of the committee's review of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, commonly referred to as the Macolin Convention. Although the U.K. signed the treaty in December 2018, it has yet to be ratified. The government introduced it to Parliament on June 4, 2026, initiating a review process that will continue until October 12.
Floyd highlighted the seriousness of the match-fixing threat, stating it poses a significant risk to the integrity of sports, public trust, fair competition, and the regulated betting market. She noted a 28% increase in reports to the U.K. Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (SBIU) between 2024 and 2025, with football and tennis being the primary contributors to this rise.
According to Floyd, this surge is attributed to the global appeal of these sports and their substantial betting volumes, rather than indicating systemic corruption. She pointed out that manipulative practices are increasingly infiltrating lower levels of sports.
Floyd explained the typical structure of modern match-fixing schemes, where athletes, intermediaries, betting locations, event venues, and financial sources often span multiple countries. This international nature complicates enforcement efforts against match-fixing.
Last month, the U.K. Gambling Commission (UKGC), the Sports Betting Integrity Forum, and the International Tennis Integrity Agency corroborated this trend during their testimonies to the committee. Their findings align with a report from Sportradar indicating that match-fixing activities are diversifying beyond traditional European strongholds.
Floyd acknowledged the need for authorities to enhance their efforts in prosecuting top figures within match-fixing networks, despite improvements in intelligence sharing and prevention strategies.
During the session, committee chair Lord Johnson of Lainston raised pertinent concerns regarding prediction market platforms like Polymarket, which have grown significantly and are harder for authorities to monitor since they do not operate through traditional gambling channels.
Floyd defended the treaty's design, asserting that it is adaptable to future developments in technology. She stated, “The creators of this treaty were astute in ensuring it remains technology-neutral, meaning that regardless of how bets are placed, including through modern prediction products, they are encompassed by the treaty.”
This perspective aligns with the UKGC’s stance that commercial prediction markets in the U.K. fall under the legal definition of gambling and thus require licensing. Analysts predict that this sector could handle over $1 trillion in annual trading volume by 2026.
When discussing strategies to combat unlicensed operators, Floyd emphasized that enforcement must go beyond merely blocking websites, suggesting that authorities should explore additional methods to disrupt their operations.